US valuation of the SF-6D

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 793-803

  Craig, Benjamin M ^a,b   Pickard, A Simon ^c   Stolk, Elly ^d   Brazier, John E ^e  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^d ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision analysis; Econometric methods; Mathematical models; Preferences and quality of life; Statistical methods

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION ANALYSIS; ECONOMETRIC METHODS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PREFERENCES AND QUALITY OF LIFE; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; STATISTICAL METHODS; UNITED STATES;

DECISION ANALYSIS; ECONOMETRIC METHODS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PREFERENCES AND QUALITY OF LIFE; STATISTICAL METHODS;

HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84884645725     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13482524     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Drummond M, Brixner D, Gold M, et al. Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value Health. 2009;12:S31-5.
2. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53-72.
3. Craig BM. Unchained melody: revisiting the estimation of SF-6D values. Value Health. 2012. Under review.
4. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel R. User's Manual for the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) core measures of health-related quality of life. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 1995.
5. Ware JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):903-12.
6. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preferencebased measure from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271-92.
7. Williams A. A measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle. York, UK: Centre for Health Economics, York Health Economics Consortium, NHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York; 1995.
8. Craig BM, Busschbach JJ. Toward a more universal approach in health valuation. Health Econ. 2011;20(7):864-75.
9. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-108.
10. Lamers LM. The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med Care. 2007;45(3):238-44.
11. Craig BM, Oppe M. From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(2):169-74.
12. Chrzan K. Using partial profile choice experiments to handle large numbers of attributes. Int J Market Res. 2010;52(6):827-40.
13. Doctor JN, Miyamoto JM. Deriving quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from constant proportional time tradeoff and risk posture conditions. J Math Psychol. 2003;47(5-6):557-67.
14. David HA. The method of paired comparisons. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1988.
15. Böckenholt U. Comparative judgments as an alternative to ratings: identifying the scale origin. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4): 453-65.
16. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1994;101(2):266-70.
17. Craig BM, Busschbach JJ, Salomon JA. Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods. Med Care. 2009;47(6): 634-41.
18. Louviere JJ, Woodworth G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Market Res. 1983;20(4):350-67.
19. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life: variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(12):1957-65.
20. Ryan M, Skåtun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ. 2004;13(4):397-402.
21. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. PharmacoEconomics. 2008; 26(8):661-77.
22. Craig BM, Busschbach JJ. The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation. Popul Health Metr. 2009;7:3.
23. Craig BM. The duration effect: a link between TTO and VAS values. Health Econ. 2009;18(2):217-25.
24. Craig BM. Weber's QALYs: DCE and TTO estimates are nearly identical. Presented at: Health Economics Study Group (HESG); July 23, 2009; Sheffield, England.
25. Craig BM, Reeve BB, Brown PM, et al. 1R01CA160104-01, HRQoL values for cancer survivors: enhancing PROMIS measures for CER. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute [RO1]; 2011.
26. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of Internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):12-6.
27. Kaczmirek L. Human-survey interaction: usability and nonresponse in online surveys. Köln, Germany: Herbert Von Halem Verlag; 2008.
28. Thorndike FP, Carlbring P, Smyth FL, et al. Web-based measurement: effect of completing single or multiple items per webpage. Comput Hum Behav. 2009;25(2):393-401.
29. Grant DB, Teller C, Teller W. 'Hidden' opportunities and benefits in using web-based business-to-business surveys. Int J Market Res. 2005;47(6):641-66.
30. Peytchev A, Couper MP, McCabe SE, Crawford SD. Web survey design: paging versus scrolling. Public Opin Q. 2006;70(4): 596-607.
31. Bosnjak M, Tuten TL, Wittmann WW.Unit (non) response in web-based access panel surveys: an extended planned-behavior approach. Psychol Mark. 2005;22(6):489-505.
32. Malhotra N. Completion time and response order effects in web surveys. Public Opin Q. 2008;72(5):914-34.
33. Laflamme F, Maydan M, Miller A, eds. Using paradata to actively manage data collection survey process. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 2008.
34. Stern MJ. The use of client-side paradata in analyzing the effects of visual layout on changing responses in web surveys. Field Methods. 2008;20(4):377-98.
35. Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Kenyon K. Picture this! An analysis of visual effects in web surveys. Public Opin Q. 2004;68(2): 255-66.
36. Day B, Pinto Prades J-L. Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manage. 2010;59(3):271-85.
37. Nilsson E, Wenemark M, Bendtsen P, Kristenson M. Respondent satisfaction regarding SF-36 and EQ-5D, and patients' perspectives concerning health outcome assessment within routine health care. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(10):1647-54.
38. Fisher J, Burstein F, Lynch K, Lazarenko K. "Usability plus usefulness = trust": an exploratory study of Australian health web sites. Internet Res. 2008;18(5):477-98.
39. DeShazo JR, Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manage. 2002;44(1):123-43.
40. National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). Medicare Health Outcomes Survey 2010. Available from: http://www.hosonline.org/Content/Default.aspx
41. Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Market Res. 1994; 31(4):545-57.
42. Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere JJ. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int J Res Market. 2005;22(4):459-70.
43. Brant R. Inference for proportions: comparing two independent samples. 2011. Available from: http://stat.ubc.ca/∼rollin/stats/ssize/b2.html
44. Krosnick JA. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1991;5(3):213-36.
45. Camilli G. Origin of the scaling constant d = 1.7 in item response theory. J Educ Behav Stat. 1994;19(3):293-5.
46. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
47. Lin LI.Aconcordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45(1):255-68.
48. US Census Bureau. United States Census 2000: your gateway to census 2000. Available from: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
49. Menzies NA, Salomon JA. Non-monotonicity in the episodic random utility model. Health Economics. 2011;20(12):1523-31.
50. Adair JG. The Hawthorne effect: a reconsideration of the methodological artifact. J Appl Psychol. 1984;69(2):334-45.
51. Fisher RJ, Katz JE. Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychol Market. 2000;17(2):105-20.
52. Bradley RA, Milton ET. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs, I: the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika. 1952; 39(3-4):324-45.
53. Luce RD. On the possible psychophysical laws. Psychol Rev. 1959;66(2):81-95.